(11-04-2016 11:14 AM)Max Power Wrote:  He also had a horse faced wife which is relevant somehow!

but just remember historians are biased and he isn't.

(11-04-2016 11:14 AM)Max Power Wrote:  He also had a horse faced wife which is relevant somehow!

Some good info here about FDR's wife, about the 40 second mark

(11-04-2016 10:53 AM)Max Power Wrote:  HOOD gets his history from a guy named LiBdEsTrOyEr.

Never heard of the guy.

(11-04-2016 11:14 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-04-2016 11:14 AM)Max Power Wrote:  He also had a horse faced wife which is relevant somehow!

but just remember historians are biased and he isn't.

Jokes are lost on the weak minded.

(11-04-2016 12:10 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  

(11-04-2016 11:14 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-04-2016 11:14 AM)Max Power Wrote:  He also had a horse faced wife which is relevant somehow!

but just remember historians are biased and he isn't.

Jokes are lost on the weak minded.

I always assumed weak minded folks are ones who get worked up over xmas.

(11-04-2016 12:10 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-04-2016 12:10 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  

(11-04-2016 11:14 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-04-2016 11:14 AM)Max Power Wrote:  He also had a horse faced wife which is relevant somehow!

but just remember historians are biased and he isn't.

Jokes are lost on the weak minded.

I always assumed weak minded folks are ones who get worked up over xmas.

I laughed!

(11-04-2016 10:54 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-04-2016 10:47 AM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  We had the nuclear bomb. We had cards to play. But FDR folded like a cheap suit. To be fair, I would do the same if married to Horse Face.

and yet the modern consensus among historians is that the USSR declaring on Japan is what led to their surrender.

we would have had to drop a even more nukes, then pull off an even more challenging invasion than D-Day.

the US sure had the best hand in the deck. But Japan and the USSR were not going to be cakewalks and the american public was incredibly war weary. you are effectively blaming him for not doubling the length of WW2 in the name of what exactly? stopping the cold war which ended without a major war and the defeat of communism?

Patton wanted to rearm the Germans and head East. I think I will trust his judgement first.

The Cold War could have been prevented which would have saved the world a lot of struggle and violence.

And who ended the Cold War? Reagan did. Yet he doesn't enter your top 5. Interesting. Regean had to clean up FDR's mess.
Your bias is showing.

(11-04-2016 10:55 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-04-2016 10:53 AM)Max Power Wrote:  HOOD gets his history from a guy named LiBdEsTrOyEr.

the dude has said you can't teach history without a christian mindset or something like that. he's a quack on historical matters.

Link to where I said that. Otherwise, it is slander.

Ah, ad hominem attacks. The last resort of the empty six shooter.

(11-04-2016 10:57 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-04-2016 10:41 AM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  

(11-04-2016 10:39 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-04-2016 10:26 AM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  

(11-03-2016 10:49 PM)john01992 Wrote:  It is true. Yall had to prop up reagan because you literally had no one else.

these discussions come down to Reagan, Teddy, Ike, JFK, LBJ, Clinton, Truman, & FDR as the most commonly cited choices. a very strong dem lean. haven't most posters also had a majority dem or at the very least a heavy dem presence on theirs?

Historians rate presidents based on how much they do which is a mistake because doing doesn't always equal good. The best policy is not to go against American values. Your selections directly attacked America and eroded our freedoms.

LOL so historians have it wrong. normally that would surprise me...but it's you making the claim so it doesn't surprise me at all.

and WTF do you mean with the bold?

and is civil rights = "eroding our freedoms?" because that's what it sounds like you are arguing.

Not all historians. But less not act like historians don't bring their own biases into play.

Obviously, I am talking about Social Security, the Supreme Court packing, the War on Poverty. Etc

But of course, you would go right to the racist card.

you have a point with the court packing and that hurt FDR back then, it is not omitted in textbooks today, and yet it is overshadowed by an overwhelming amount of success.

social security and the war on poverty is "eroding our freedoms"

like I said. quack quack.

Yes, they are. Social Security tells me that I can't be trusted to fund my own retirement. The War on Poverty has lead to more poverty and an increased government intrusion in our lives.

Four year olds say quack quack, not grownups.

(11-04-2016 11:14 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-04-2016 11:14 AM)Max Power Wrote:  He also had a horse faced wife which is relevant somehow!

but just remember historians are biased and he isn't.

I never said I don't have my biases. I do, you do. Everyone does. Let's not pretend that historians magically remove their biases.

(11-04-2016 12:10 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-04-2016 12:10 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  

(11-04-2016 11:14 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(11-04-2016 11:14 AM)Max Power Wrote:  He also had a horse faced wife which is relevant somehow!

but just remember historians are biased and he isn't.

Jokes are lost on the weak minded.

I always assumed weak minded folks are ones who get worked up over xmas.

My apologies for caring about how a major holiday of my faith is secularized and used by others.

Patton had no sense of politics and big picture tactics. Rommel and Patton are widely respected for their ability to command specific battles and regional engagements, but as a Five star or Field Marshal they weren't great options to command an entire army. It's similar to the roles of Stonewall and Lee.

Of course Patton wanted to invade russia because as a character it fits right into his mindset. it disregards the political, diplomatic, and causality ramifications of such a move. it's asinine to bring up Pattons ideas because the allied leadership knew he was as much of a liability as he was a great field commander and didn't use him to the fullest. Patton in no way represented the overall attitude of the allied leadership and while he outsmarted them in foresight including the impending issue of Russia, it still disregards how insane invading them would be.

and for what to "save the world from struggle and violence" by basically doubling the length of WWII?

reagan ending the cold war is nothing but a conservative propaganda talking point. Reagan's actions are at best secondary to internal USSR reformers. part of the reason I didn't put reagan in my top five. I don't see that as a major accomplishment. I give credit to Bush I who helped push Europe along in German reunification.

(11-04-2016 12:31 PM)john01992 Wrote:  Patton had no sense of politics and big picture tactics. Rommel and Patton are widely respected for their ability to command specific battles and regional engagements, but as a Five star or Field Marshal they weren't great options to command an entire army. It's similar to the roles of Stonewall and Lee.

Of course Patton wanted to invade russia because as a character it fits right into his mindset. it disregards the political, diplomatic, and causality ramifications of such a move. it's asinine to bring up Pattons ideas because the allied leadership knew he was as much of a liability as he was a great field commander and didn't use him to the fullest. Patton in no way represented the overall attitude of the allied leadership and while he outsmarted them in foresight including the impending issue of Russia, it still disregards how insane invading them would be.

and for what to "save the world from struggle and violence" by basically doubling the length of WWII?

reagan ending the cold war is nothing but a conservative propaganda talking point. Reagan's actions are at best secondary to internal USSR reformers. part of the reason I didn't put reagan in my top five. I don't see that as a major accomplishment. I give credit to Bush I who helped push Europe along in German reunification.

I can't believe that you mentioned Confederate generals.

The Allied leadership didn't have the guts to follow through on the opportunity. That stems from a president that let Stalin have his way. If only Churchill was president. We had a golden opportunity to end Communist Russia. But the Allied leadership dropped the ball.

And you said it, Patton was right.

A history expert like yourself should have remembered Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, Eastern Europe being under the tyranny of an atheist state which persecuted and killed millions.

That is a lot of suffering that could have ended when the world was already in a battle mindset.

you do realize CSA generals high highly respected as military commanders right?

the allied leadership didn't go through with it because it was an asinine suggestion. there was no "opportunity." You had a battle hardened Red Army, a massive refugee crisis, Europe in total ruins, denazifaction of germany, establishment of the UN, oh and a war with Japan.

you really want to see the US fight a Stalingrad or Leningrad. are you crazy? FDR died, Churchill got whipped in the election.

post WWII is known as the long peace for a reason. the wars paled in comparison and the USSR collapsed without a major war.

patton was right in the sense that the russians would be a problem but totally wrong in the sense of denazification, reconstruction, united nations, and minimizing American casualities.

the Red Army was absolutely no joke. they fought the best soldiers of both Germany and Japan.

and you prove you have an extreme bias with the label of "atheist state"

Quote:the Red Army was absolutely no joke. they fought the best soldiers of both Germany and Japan

the only big difference, John, that I can see (and not disputing your point on this, just pointing out) It's pretty well known that the Red Army was much better at a defensive war in their homeland with the colder weather, which you would not have had over the majority of mainland Europe.

They weren't as effective once they got past the flatlands of Poland.

Again, I understand why FDR put his dividing line where he did, I just think that I think his reasoning was flawed. (We would have faced stiffer issues Nazi resistance more so than from the Soviet Army)

(11-04-2016 10:58 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  If people really consider President Obama to be one of the top 5 worst presidents of all time, their partisanship is showing in a pretty insane way. The country is better off in almost every conceivable manner now than it was when he took over 8 years ago and significantly so. He wasn't perfect, but good God I'm not sure what exactly people were expecting. Crime is down, the economy is up, jobs are up, wages are moving in the right direction...whether he is given the credit or not he's governed mostly from the center and the country is doing well.

You need a broader range of media and friends. The country is worse off in almost every conceivable manner. We aren't respected by our allies. We aren't respected by our enemies. We have more enemies. Terrorists have taken over vast swaths of Africa and the Middle East and are on the move in Asia. And they are in Europe and the US. North Korea and Iran continue their nuclear programs unabated. Pakistan is becoming increasingly unstable and uncooperative with us.

The middle class is struggling more than ever before with people working multiple jobs and doing more contract work than ever to make ends meet. The economy is better than January 2009, but is worse, except for those at the very top, than just about any time before the recession started. Companies keep fleeing our shores.

Race relations are at their worst since the early 70s. Crime is rapidly increasing over the past year after a 25 year decline.

Politics are increasingly polarized and were even before Hillary and Donald.

Obamacare is a disaster and taxes are higher. Anybody who thinks he has governed from the center is totally delusional and needs to get out from their bubble.

(11-04-2016 01:12 PM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

Quote:the Red Army was absolutely no joke. they fought the best soldiers of both Germany and Japan

the only big difference, John, that I can see (and not disputing your point on this, just pointing out) It's pretty well known that the Red Army was much better at a defensive war in their homeland with the colder weather, which you would not have had over the majority of mainland Europe.

They weren't as effective once they got past the flatlands of Poland.

Again, I understand why FDR put his dividing line where he did, I just think that I think his reasoning was flawed. (We would have faced stiffer issues Nazi resistance more so than from the Soviet Army)

that's not the case at all.





The Red Army under pressure from stalin who did not want to see the west capture east germany sped up the russian advance. Ike did not want to spend a single american life on territory that would be handed over to russian control and slowed down.

the idea that FDR/Truman should be blamed for not starting a war with the USSR is not shared by many. it's mostly the crazy righties on here who even go there.

FDR blew it at Yalta. He was dying and gave in on everything. Churchill was furious and understood what would happen. FDR sided with Stalin.

War with the USSR in 1945 was a difficult sell. But it was before that when he blew it. Much like JFK creating the Cuban missile crisis with his weakness earlier.

Quote:that's not the case at all.

The Russian army faced less resistance the further out they were from the German borders, as the majority of the troops were already pulling back due to the Allied approaches on the western front.

I can't remember the book, but it was required reading back in my JuCo days, that basically said if the Allies weren't coming on the west, Germany's troops were ready to stymie Russia and those two nations would have been at a standstill for YEARS. I think his claim was that Poland/Prussian area would have been stuck between the two for ages, because Russia had the numbers but not the tactical know-how. (but again, it may have been from someone writing to prove his own point in the process).

Quote:Ike did not want to spend a single american life on territory that would be handed over to russian control and slowed down

I remember it being that Eisenhower knew the Nazis were defeated, and he simply didn't want to lose any soldiers to the Nazis that were 'adamant' in fighting to the death and that it was much easier to let the Russians perform the mop-up duties for them.

at the end of the day this all comes back to the point of who would win and the historical consensus is at the very least, a long bitter fight. the british gave it 1 in 3 and soundly rejected it.

The chiefs of staff were never under any delusions about the impracticability of an offensive against the Russians to liberate Poland. Brooke wrote in his diary that 'the idea is of course fantastic and the chances of success quite impossible. There is no doubt that from now onwards Russia is all-powerful in Europe'.

In fact:

What, then, if the Americans didn't stay the course? Churchill was alarmed. If the Americans withdrew from such a fight, Britain would be left horribly exposed, since the Russians had the power to advance to the North Sea and the Atlantic. It would be 1940 all over again.

Russia probably could have easily defeated Germany and it would then be a question of could they defeat the rest of Europe.

then there is this:

It seemed more likely, they suggested, that Moscow would resort to intensive rocket bombardment, on a scale more destructive than that of the German V1s and V2s. To defend against such a threat, they that estimated a massive force of 230 squadrons of fighters and 300 squadrons of bombers would be necessary.

remember that at one point Hitler was killing more British civilians than soldiers on the western front.

it would have been a devastating war and it omits that if fought, Japan continues to fight.

(11-04-2016 12:54 PM)john01992 Wrote:  you do realize CSA generals high highly respected as military commanders right?

the allied leadership didn't go through with it because it was an asinine suggestion. there was no "opportunity." You had a battle hardened Red Army, a massive refugee crisis, Europe in total ruins, denazifaction of germany, establishment of the UN, oh and a war with Japan.

you really want to see the US fight a Stalingrad or Leningrad. are you crazy? FDR died, Churchill got whipped in the election.

post WWII is known as the long peace for a reason. the wars paled in comparison and the USSR collapsed without a major war.

patton was right in the sense that the russians would be a problem but totally wrong in the sense of denazification, reconstruction, united nations, and minimizing American casualities.

the Red Army was absolutely no joke. they fought the best soldiers of both Germany and Japan.

and you prove you have an extreme bias with the label of "atheist state"

It's one thing to say that from out standpoint and quite another if you are Polish, Romanian, Bulgarian, Hungarian, Czech, etc.

It's even another when you consider what an aggressive stance the Soviets took in their war with Poland, claims on Bessarabia, and demands from Finland prior to the second world war.

It isn't wrong to say that FDR and the West sold those people out. He did. You can say he had a reason, and that's fair, but it doesn't change the injustice that followed.

I think it is fair to say that in the most moral sense the right thing to do for mankind would have been to defeat the Soviet Union even if it is undeniable that to do so was not pragmatic and not in the best interests of the American people.

There are two types of presidencies throughout US history - the ones during normal periods when it’s hard for a president to do anything to make them great, and those during periods of severe conflict when it’s hard to not succeed spectacularly or fail miserably. I partially separate the president from their presidency, looking a bit at their views on governance in addition to their actions in office as a way to evaluate them on a more even scale.

Best:
1. Coolidge - Knew the proper role of government and had the courage to carry it out. Legacy was tainted by ineptitude of Hoover, FDR worship.
2. Ike - Similar to Coolidge, was able to preside over a fantastic post-war economy and remained strong foreign policy-wise.
3. Clinton - In spite of his personal shortcomings and some other things I'm not a fan of (Hillarycare, DOMA), he did a solid job overall.
4. Truman - Containment ended up being a winning strategy, he recognized Israel, and set the stage for economic boom after post-war recession. Big drawbacks for his court nominations and failure to properly combat McCarthyism.
5. Teddy - His 'progressive' label has been tainted by modern progressives, much like classic liberals.

Worst:
1. Wilson - A white supremacist who segregated the government, illegally curtailed civil liberties, founded the income tax, only supported women's suffrage when it was politically convenient, and who's involvement in WWI set up the Treaty of Versailles and then WWII.
2. LBJ - Civil rights efforts cancelled out by Vietnam and the welfare state, among other major problems.
3. Hoover - He's made out to be some laissez-faire figure, but he was a protectionist who invested in giant public works project, hiked up taxes to try and pay for them, and believed in government experts to solve problems. His failure to limit the downturn had massive, negative consequences imo.
4. Carter - Admire him for trying to shake up Washington as a complete outsider, but he had the wrong ideas at the wrong time with no political savvy.
5. FDR - See negatives below.

I would probably include Obama and the second Bush in the bottom five, but I think you have to wait at least a couple of terms out of office for any president before you can even begin to put their actions into historical context. We can clearly see how someone a century ago affected our nation today with decades of hindsight, I don't think you can do that as much for recent presidents (besides evaluating their actions in the moment).

As bizarre as it seems, FDR arguably belongs on my top five list as well. In one sense I detest the man for his approach to government and his actions in office which prolonged the Depression (dragging out great suffering in the US while diverting resources and attention when a recovered America could've better protected Europe) and led to many of our problems today imo (began buildup to the welfare state, unnecessary bureaucratic regulation). One thing that's often forgotten is what happened when he failed to follow the two-term tradition; even though the packing plan failed, he still turned it in his favor since he was around long enough that he basically had his own court to reverse the Black Monday decisions, paving the way for vast expansion of power within the executive branch under modern presidents.

On the other hand, the bottom line is that we won the war under him as commander-in-chief and the nation was in a position to enter post-war stability and prosperity after his death. For that, he earns some 'completion points' even if certain actions to accomplish those ends (internment camps, failure to bomb Nazi rail lines to death camps, borderline nationalization of certain business) had more than questionable merit. But under a weak, Buchanan-like leader during the war instead, Europe might still be flying under a swastika today, and for that he deserves credit. Doesn't outweigh his negatives, but I do believe that FDR helped "make the world safe for democracy" to borrow a quote from Wilson, who did not exemplify those ideals.

(11-04-2016 10:22 AM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  

(11-04-2016 07:07 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(11-03-2016 09:08 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  Just Reagan and Eisenhower.

Nixon wasn't shabby. LBJ wrecked the War on Poverty. JFK is saved by his martyr status. Teddy was a progressive. The older Bush isn't bad. Clinton is not a scumbag. Young Bush blew it. Obama is top 2 in all time bad. Truman sacked General MacArthur. Coolidge actually was a good president. He understood that a president doesn't need to do something. Hoover deserved a second term to show the economy would naturally rebound.

FDR is easily one of the worst presidents in history. He prolonged the Depression and let Russia have Eastern Europe.

Please explain how he let them have Eastern Europe when they defeated the German army on the eastern front?

The Russian army was depleted while ours was strong. We could have forced them back but old man FDR didn't have the guts to do so.

Oh, go from fighting the Germans to fighting the Red Army that had way more men than we had while preparing for the Invasion of Japan? No.